billrob37 wrote:The voters will grow tired until they feel the full affect. There have been alternatives propose, but what happened when Cruz wanted to delay it? The democrats refused and shut down the government. Then decided to start delaying it. Cruz was right dems weren't. See what happens when better offers are proposed........they get no where. Obama threatened to veto anything that changed the law. What would you propose republicans do about that?

Cruz attempted to destroy our entire system of government. And Obama never "threatened to veto anything that changed the law." If Congress passed a bill that improved the ACA, Obama would gladly sign it.

Quit being such a shill. "It's the law of the land. I will veto any attempt to change or repeal". Harry Reid will not bring anything republicans have or could suggest to the floor for debate. What do you want republicans to do about that. Why are democrats trying to delay many parts of the bill, if it's so good. They are starting to agree and finally admit that they were wrong. Why don't you try it and set your burdened soul free. You and Johnny could go talk about other stuff that you know nothing about and free up some time to educate yourself.

He never said that. Making something up and putting quotes around it doesn't make it a quote. Of course he's not going to repeal the ACA. And you want Republican changes enacted just because they're by Republicans. There's no critical thinking involved. You just want Republican legislation enacted.

And since there is absolutely no logic involved in your argument, you need to engage in personal attacks and name calling. That's the conservative way.

Thanks Easy A. I guess that pretty much shows Dave doesn't know what he is talking about, although that was pretty much common knowledge. With Rieds obstruction in the senate and Obama's veto threat, how or why would repub's offer up any improvements.

billrob37 wrote:June 6th 2012. He threatened to veto the medical device tax that had democrat support. That's just one time. There are many more.

That doesn't make any sense. Taxes can't be "vetoed."

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."~ Steven Weinberg - Nobel laureate in Physics.

No, that doesn't show in any way that Obama threatened to veto any bill that changes the ACA. Those are bills intended to destroy the ACA. Of course he's going to veto them! lol!

Conservative logic is an oxymoron.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."~ Steven Weinberg - Nobel laureate in Physics.

Blue Nation wrote:It's a little easier to despise the GOP every day. They can't get any nastier than they've been since about 1994. Why would anyone care what they have to say?

Yes because freedom of choice without the government dictating how we should live and exactly how we should think is a nasty thing to you liberals who can't stand people improving their own lives. Liberals think its disgusting to work your way to what you want and can't believe they get resistance when they want to take the fruits of someones labor and give it to those that won't. Just horrible.

Is that what we think? Far from it. We believe in work and self-reliance as much as anyone, but we also believe in the social contract as a means of protecting the least fortunate among us. We think the social contract ought to include healthcare, as it does in every other modern country. It's a simple moral question in addition to an economic one. Healthier people tend to be happier and more productive.

This country can easily afford the ACA; it can't afford to let the GOP reverse the progress already made.

"Social contract". In every contract I've seen, all parties involved have certain obligations to each other.

So, what are the contractual obligations of the receivers, the "least fortunate among us", in exchange for the benefits that the rest of us are supposed to provide them?

I expect people on the Right to be selfish and resentful. That's just how they are. The social contract is an old idea in western societies. It doesn't exist in many other parts of the world and it shows in the gross inequality and misery of those societies. In the west, the social contract is understood to be a two way street in which individuals will conform with the law, do productive work and assume personal responsibility for themselves and their families to the extent they can. Individuals accept modest limitations on their personal liberty and also accept the need to contribute to the sustainment of society through payment of taxes and military or community service. In return, they receive protection of their lives and property, and a broad recognition of their civil rights which the state will endeavor to protect. They should also have access to education and economic opportunity. In the most advanced societies, they also receive an assurance that if they are disabled or sick and cannot provide for themselves, society will provide the medical care and basic sustenance that life requires. That is the social contract that separates successful societies from failed ones.

None of that is to say that anyone who refuses to work is entitled to society's largesse, but the Right, as a way of simplifying a complex situation, tends to lump those who have encountered great misfortune with those who simply choose not to work. There is a big difference. Democrats want to extend the benefits of the social contract to those who deserve it and, apparently republicans do not.

billrob37 wrote:June 6th 2012. He threatened to veto the medical device tax that had democrat support. That's just one time. There are many more.

That doesn't make any sense. Taxes can't be "vetoed."

Stay with me here. The house put out a bill to remove the medical device tax in The Obamacare law. They had democratic support. Obama stated that he would veto it if the bill got to his desk. Reid never brought it to the floor for debate. Anyway, you have been proven wrong. What do you propose republicans do to forward their plans on health insurance. They were shut out on the front end of the bill. Obama will veto any changes and Reid will obstruct. If you were a republican with a plan what would you do?

Blue Nation wrote:It's a little easier to despise the GOP every day. They can't get any nastier than they've been since about 1994. Why would anyone care what they have to say?

Yes because freedom of choice without the government dictating how we should live and exactly how we should think is a nasty thing to you liberals who can't stand people improving their own lives. Liberals think its disgusting to work your way to what you want and can't believe they get resistance when they want to take the fruits of someones labor and give it to those that won't. Just horrible.

Is that what we think? Far from it. We believe in work and self-reliance as much as anyone, but we also believe in the social contract as a means of protecting the least fortunate among us. We think the social contract ought to include healthcare, as it does in every other modern country. It's a simple moral question in addition to an economic one. Healthier people tend to be happier and more productive.

This country can easily afford the ACA; it can't afford to let the GOP reverse the progress already made.

"Social contract". In every contract I've seen, all parties involved have certain obligations to each other.

So, what are the contractual obligations of the receivers, the "least fortunate among us", in exchange for the benefits that the rest of us are supposed to provide them?

I expect people on the Right to be selfish and resentful. That's just how they are. The social contract is an old idea in western societies. It doesn't exist in many other parts of the world and it shows in the gross inequality and misery of those societies. In the west, the social contract is understood to be a two way street in which individuals will conform with the law, do productive work and assume personal responsibility for themselves and their families to the extent they can. Individuals accept modest limitations on their personal liberty and also accept the need to contribute to the sustainment of society through payment of taxes and military or community service. In return, they receive protection of their lives and property, and a broad recognition of their civil rights which the state will endeavor to protect. They should also have access to education and economic opportunity. In the most advanced societies, they also receive an assurance that if they are disabled or sick and cannot provide for themselves, society will provide the medical care and basic sustenance that life requires. That is the social contract that separates successful societies from failed ones.

None of that is to say that anyone who refuses to work is entitled to society's largesse, but the Right, as a way of simplifying a complex situation, tends to lump those who have encountered great misfortune with those who simply choose not to work. There is a big difference. Democrats want to extend the benefits of the social contract to those who deserve it and, apparently republicans do not.

Conservatives and republicans are the most generous political group. They give more of their money to charities and there is not a group that is a close second. If your going to lie in the first sentence of your post, why would anybody read the rest of it.

billrob37 wrote:June 6th 2012. He threatened to veto the medical device tax that had democrat support. That's just one time. There are many more.

That doesn't make any sense. Taxes can't be "vetoed."

Stay with me here. The house put out a bill to remove the medical device tax in The Obamacare law. They had democratic support. Obama stated that he would veto it if the bill got to his desk. Reid never brought it to the floor for debate. Anyway, you have been proven wrong. What do you propose republicans do to forward their plans on health insurance. They were shut out on the front end of the bill. Obama will veto any changes and Reid will obstruct. If you were a republican with a plan what would you do?

Republicans don't have any "plans." They just want to destroy the ACA. The medical device tax is necessary to help pay for the ACA. Why do Republicans insist on driving up the debt? And why do conservatives support Republican policies simply because they're Republican policies? That's not good for America.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."~ Steven Weinberg - Nobel laureate in Physics.

billrob37 wrote:Conservatives and republicans are the most generous political group. They give more of their money to charities and there is not a group that is a close second. If your going to lie in the first sentence of your post, why would anybody read the rest of it.

Conservatives donate to churches because they believe it will buy them a place in heaven. That's not exactly a noble cause. Conservatives aren't even willing to help pay for the wars they're responsible for, and now they're advocating for more war with Russia. Our country is deep in debt due to conservative policies.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."~ Steven Weinberg - Nobel laureate in Physics.

billrob37 wrote:June 6th 2012. He threatened to veto the medical device tax that had democrat support. That's just one time. There are many more.

That doesn't make any sense. Taxes can't be "vetoed."

Stay with me here. The house put out a bill to remove the medical device tax in The Obamacare law. They had democratic support. Obama stated that he would veto it if the bill got to his desk. Reid never brought it to the floor for debate. Anyway, you have been proven wrong. What do you propose republicans do to forward their plans on health insurance. They were shut out on the front end of the bill. Obama will veto any changes and Reid will obstruct. If you were a republican with a plan what would you do?

Republicans don't have any "plans." They just want to destroy the ACA. The medical device tax is necessary to help pay for the ACA. Why do Republicans insist on driving up the debt? And why do conservatives support Republican policies simply because they're Republican policies? That's not good for America.

Terrible diversion. You are a better debater than that. If I was a republican with a good idea about health insurance, what avenues are left open for the good idea? Simple question. If I came to you for valuable advice, what would you tell me to do? Good luck Dave, you've got thirty seconds.

billrob37 wrote:June 6th 2012. He threatened to veto the medical device tax that had democrat support. That's just one time. There are many more.

That doesn't make any sense. Taxes can't be "vetoed."

Stay with me here. The house put out a bill to remove the medical device tax in The Obamacare law. They had democratic support. Obama stated that he would veto it if the bill got to his desk. Reid never brought it to the floor for debate. Anyway, you have been proven wrong. What do you propose republicans do to forward their plans on health insurance. They were shut out on the front end of the bill. Obama will veto any changes and Reid will obstruct. If you were a republican with a plan what would you do?

The GOP was not "shut out on the front end". They made a political decision not to participate constructively in writing the ACA. A year was wasted by democrats in congress attempting to bring the GOP to the table, all to no avail. Now the republicans say they were "shut out". Once again, they're obvious liars. They've done nothing but obstruct implementation of the ACA, the only result being millions of people in certain Red states, Florida, Texas and others, are still unable to access decent health care.

The medical devices tax will do two important things: it will encourage efficient use of medical devices rather than purchasing more than are needed and passing the cost on to the consumers, and it will provide a little more revenue to offset other program costs. The medical device lobby would like it to go away for purely self-serving reasons, but there is no public benefit in delaying or abolishing it.

Republicans have been nothing but destructive and devious in regard to the ACA. They've lied time after time and been exposed as liars but they don't care; they keep lying and gullible people continue to believe them. It can't go on forever. As the ACA gains momentum and more people see that it is working, the GOP will be at a loss to say anything at all.

Blue Nation wrote:It's a little easier to despise the GOP every day. They can't get any nastier than they've been since about 1994. Why would anyone care what they have to say?

Yes because freedom of choice without the government dictating how we should live and exactly how we should think is a nasty thing to you liberals who can't stand people improving their own lives. Liberals think its disgusting to work your way to what you want and can't believe they get resistance when they want to take the fruits of someones labor and give it to those that won't. Just horrible.

Is that what we think? Far from it. We believe in work and self-reliance as much as anyone, but we also believe in the social contract as a means of protecting the least fortunate among us. We think the social contract ought to include healthcare, as it does in every other modern country. It's a simple moral question in addition to an economic one. Healthier people tend to be happier and more productive.

This country can easily afford the ACA; it can't afford to let the GOP reverse the progress already made.

"Social contract". In every contract I've seen, all parties involved have certain obligations to each other.

So, what are the contractual obligations of the receivers, the "least fortunate among us", in exchange for the benefits that the rest of us are supposed to provide them?

I expect people on the Right to be selfish and resentful. That's just how they are. The social contract is an old idea in western societies. It doesn't exist in many other parts of the world and it shows in the gross inequality and misery of those societies. In the west, the social contract is understood to be a two way street in which individuals will conform with the law, do productive work and assume personal responsibility for themselves and their families to the extent they can. Individuals accept modest limitations on their personal liberty and also accept the need to contribute to the sustainment of society through payment of taxes and military or community service. In return, they receive protection of their lives and property, and a broad recognition of their civil rights which the state will endeavor to protect. They should also have access to education and economic opportunity. In the most advanced societies, they also receive an assurance that if they are disabled or sick and cannot provide for themselves, society will provide the medical care and basic sustenance that life requires. That is the social contract that separates successful societies from failed ones.

None of that is to say that anyone who refuses to work is entitled to society's largesse, but the Right, as a way of simplifying a complex situation, tends to lump those who have encountered great misfortune with those who simply choose not to work. There is a big difference. Democrats want to extend the benefits of the social contract to those who deserve it and, apparently republicans do not.

Conservatives and republicans are the most generous political group. They give more of their money to charities and there is not a group that is a close second. If your going to lie in the first sentence of your post, why would anybody read the rest of it.

People who are not selfish or indifferent to the plights of others do not complain about the ACA or any other program to improve the lives of the most needy. Unfortunately the conservative posters at this site complain bitterly about all such programs, and do so in the language of hate and resentment. So I stand by my original statement.

billrob37 wrote:Terrible diversion. You are a better debater than that. If I was a republican with a good idea about health insurance, what avenues are left open for the good idea? Simple question. If I came to you for valuable advice, what would you tell me to do? Good luck Dave, you've got thirty seconds.

The ACA contains 159 Republican Amendments. You're arguing that Republican policies should be enacted simply because they're Republican. You're not advocating for any specific policies; you're advocating for your party. Too many people think that way, which is why our country is on its last legs.

Name the Republican's best idea to improve our country's healthcare system. Just one good one. Don't cut and past some list from a right-wing site; just give one example of a good Republican idea that will improve our healthcare system.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."~ Steven Weinberg - Nobel laureate in Physics.

billrob37 wrote:June 6th 2012. He threatened to veto the medical device tax that had democrat support. That's just one time. There are many more.

That doesn't make any sense. Taxes can't be "vetoed."

Stay with me here. The house put out a bill to remove the medical device tax in The Obamacare law. They had democratic support. Obama stated that he would veto it if the bill got to his desk. Reid never brought it to the floor for debate. Anyway, you have been proven wrong. What do you propose republicans do to forward their plans on health insurance. They were shut out on the front end of the bill. Obama will veto any changes and Reid will obstruct. If you were a republican with a plan what would you do?

The GOP was not "shut out on the front end". They made a political decision not to participate constructively in writing the ACA. A year was wasted by democrats in congress attempting to bring the GOP to the table, all to no avail. Now the republicans say they were "shut out". Once again, they're obvious liars. They've done nothing but obstruct implementation of the ACA, the only result being millions of people in certain Red states, Florida, Texas and others, are still unable to access decent health care.

The medical devices tax will do two important things: it will encourage efficient use of medical devices rather than purchasing more than are needed and passing the cost on to the consumers, and it will provide a little more revenue to offset other program costs. The medical device lobby would like it to go away for purely self-serving reasons, but there is no public benefit in delaying or abolishing it.

Republicans have been nothing but destructive and devious in regard to the ACA. They've lied time after time and been exposed as liars but they don't care; they keep lying and gullible people continue to believe them. It can't go on forever. As the ACA gains momentum and more people see that it is working, the GOP will be at a loss to say anything at all.

AdamI have told you before, if the first sentence of your post is a lie, why would I read the rest of the post.

billrob37 wrote:Terrible diversion. You are a better debater than that. If I was a republican with a good idea about health insurance, what avenues are left open for the good idea? Simple question. If I came to you for valuable advice, what would you tell me to do? Good luck Dave, you've got thirty seconds.

The ACA contains 159 Republican Amendments. You're arguing that Republican policies should be enacted simply because they're Republican. You're not advocating for any specific policies; you're advocating for your party. Too many people think that way, which is why our country is on its last legs.

Name the Republican's best idea to improve our country's healthcare system. Just one good one. Don't cut and past some list from a right-wing site; just give one example of a good Republican idea that will improve our healthcare system.

I'm not going to have conversations with you if you are not going to answer my original question. That is the civil back and forth that should happen. If you can't do that, you are a troll or a DP plant. Either way nobody takes you serious. The amendments you are talking about are not in the ACA. They were in another bill not in the ACA. If republicans were so involved, why didn't any republicans vote for it.

billrob37 wrote:June 6th 2012. He threatened to veto the medical device tax that had democrat support. That's just one time. There are many more.

That doesn't make any sense. Taxes can't be "vetoed."

Stay with me here. The house put out a bill to remove the medical device tax in The Obamacare law. They had democratic support. Obama stated that he would veto it if the bill got to his desk. Reid never brought it to the floor for debate. Anyway, you have been proven wrong. What do you propose republicans do to forward their plans on health insurance. They were shut out on the front end of the bill. Obama will veto any changes and Reid will obstruct. If you were a republican with a plan what would you do?

The GOP was not "shut out on the front end". They made a political decision not to participate constructively in writing the ACA. A year was wasted by democrats in congress attempting to bring the GOP to the table, all to no avail. Now the republicans say they were "shut out". Once again, they're obvious liars. They've done nothing but obstruct implementation of the ACA, the only result being millions of people in certain Red states, Florida, Texas and others, are still unable to access decent health care.

The medical devices tax will do two important things: it will encourage efficient use of medical devices rather than purchasing more than are needed and passing the cost on to the consumers, and it will provide a little more revenue to offset other program costs. The medical device lobby would like it to go away for purely self-serving reasons, but there is no public benefit in delaying or abolishing it.

Republicans have been nothing but destructive and devious in regard to the ACA. They've lied time after time and been exposed as liars but they don't care; they keep lying and gullible people continue to believe them. It can't go on forever. As the ACA gains momentum and more people see that it is working, the GOP will be at a loss to say anything at all.

AdamI have told you before, if the first sentence of your post is a lie, why would I read the rest of the post.

Like many on the Right, you've lost the ability to distinguish the truth from a lie, so you end up believing the lies you prefer as if they were true.

Blue Nation wrote:It's a little easier to despise the GOP every day. They can't get any nastier than they've been since about 1994. Why would anyone care what they have to say?

Yes because freedom of choice without the government dictating how we should live and exactly how we should think is a nasty thing to you liberals who can't stand people improving their own lives. Liberals think its disgusting to work your way to what you want and can't believe they get resistance when they want to take the fruits of someones labor and give it to those that won't. Just horrible.

Is that what we think? Far from it. We believe in work and self-reliance as much as anyone, but we also believe in the social contract as a means of protecting the least fortunate among us. We think the social contract ought to include healthcare, as it does in every other modern country. It's a simple moral question in addition to an economic one. Healthier people tend to be happier and more productive.

This country can easily afford the ACA; it can't afford to let the GOP reverse the progress already made.

"Social contract". In every contract I've seen, all parties involved have certain obligations to each other.

So, what are the contractual obligations of the receivers, the "least fortunate among us", in exchange for the benefits that the rest of us are supposed to provide them?

I expect people on the Right to be selfish and resentful. That's just how they are. The social contract is an old idea in western societies. It doesn't exist in many other parts of the world and it shows in the gross inequality and misery of those societies. In the west, the social contract is understood to be a two way street in which individuals will conform with the law, do productive work and assume personal responsibility for themselves and their families to the extent they can. Individuals accept modest limitations on their personal liberty and also accept the need to contribute to the sustainment of society through payment of taxes and military or community service. In return, they receive protection of their lives and property, and a broad recognition of their civil rights which the state will endeavor to protect. They should also have access to education and economic opportunity. In the most advanced societies, they also receive an assurance that if they are disabled or sick and cannot provide for themselves, society will provide the medical care and basic sustenance that life requires. That is the social contract that separates successful societies from failed ones.

None of that is to say that anyone who refuses to work is entitled to society's largesse, but the Right, as a way of simplifying a complex situation, tends to lump those who have encountered great misfortune with those who simply choose not to work. There is a big difference. Democrats want to extend the benefits of the social contract to those who deserve it and, apparently republicans do not.

I didn't say there wasn't a social contract. I just asked what are the contractual obligations of those who receive the benefits that other people in this contract are expected to provide? Specifically, what is required of "those who have encountered great misfortune" as their part of the contract?

BTW, when I help someone who needs it, I do so because they need it, and not because I'm fulfilling a part of some contract. It's the compassionate thing to do.

“I'm not a dictator.” -- Barack Obama, March 2013“As a president, I can do whatever I want.” -- Barack Obama, February 2014